Jump to content

Talk:Large igneous province

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Question

[edit]

How long would it take for a large igneous province to cool?

Obviously the initial temperature, depth, and composition all play key roles.

"Individual lava flows may take tens to hundreds of years, depending on thickness. Keep in mind that perhaps 90% of the magma generated may remain deep within the crust as intrusions, which will keep the crust hot for a long time. Geodoc 05:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Cordilleran volcanic province

[edit]

Should Northern Cordilleran volcanic province be listed on this page? Nothing there seems to suggest that it is a Large igneous province. --Burntnickel 16:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, i have removed it. Good call. Geodoc 05:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's back. I rather doubt it should be here unless someone can point to publications that suggest there's some consensus (that I'm as yet unaware of) where this is considered a LIP. I think examples should be limited to cases where there's broad consensus in the scientific community of the feature's status as a LIP. Of course it doesn't help that LIPs are rather crudely defined. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.9.146.66 (talk • contribs).

You're right. I've removed it. -- Avenue 13:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also removed all mention of "large igneous province" from Northern Cordilleran Volcanic Province, since no reference I can find would support that claim. In fact, Wikipedia was the only place I could find such a claim was being made. --Seattle Skier (talk) 18:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Difficult to follow

[edit]

This article is really interesting, but it is difficult for a layman (like me) to follow. I feel the language could be made more accessible.

John W.

Can you give some specific examples of language thats hard to follow? I have tried to avoid jargon in my edits, but there may be some from previous edits. Its a little hard to know what is difficult for non-specialists when you are a specialist. Thanks!
PS: Try following some of the links too, that wll give a broader picture of different aspects. The LIPS website has some great graphics - i will see if any can be reproduced here. Geodoc 06:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some strange notation that I haven't seen anywhere (introduced at this point):
examples are the Deccan traps:end Cretaceous extinction event
What are these end for, especially when used without spacing? And in general, is it valid English? --saimhe 15:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, "Permian Emeishan Large Igneous Province" link on this page goes to "Mt Emri" or something. I was expecting to find that the Permian Emeishan LIP was related to the Siberian traps (or at least coincident in time).

Thanks for your time. John W.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.83.232.158 (talk) 13:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, this is peculiar. Apparently, Mt Emi is near all that basalt. According to LIPS database, Emeishan (258 million years) is slightly older than Siberian traps (249-251). But there is published age of 251 on Emeishan also, so they could be equivalent. Geodoc 06:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More LIPS?

[edit]

Hi. Is there a large igneous province in Western USA, surrounding Yellowstone, Long Valley, Valle Grande, La Garita, and Bruneau-Jarbidge? Thanks. AstroHurricane001(Talk+Contribs+Ubx) 21:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Bruneau-Jarbidge eruptive center is an early (10-12 mya) element of the track of the Yellowstone Hot Spot. Yellowstone (0-2 mya) itself is (coincidentally) today at the location where, 50 million years ago, the Absaroka Volcanics were erupted. Long Valley Caldera is perhaps related to the boundary zone between the Basin and Range province and the Sierra Nevada, but as far as I know its ultimate origin (dating to about 750,000 yrs) is not clear. Valle Grande (Jemez Caldera) is related to a regional weak zone transecting the Rio Grande Rift and the edge of thick crust on the southeast side of the Colorado Plateau; it dates to 1-1.4 mya. La Garita Caldera is part of the San Juan Volcanics, erupted about 28 million years ago. Like Jemez, La Garita and the San Juan Volcanics are probably somehow related to the flanks of the thick crust of the Colorado Plateau, this time on the NE side but at a different time. A similar volcanic pile that you did not mention is found on the NW flank of the plateau, comprising the Marysvale Volcanics of SW Utah, dating to about 24 million years ago.
The features you name are not related directly to each other (especially not in time or space, but in many cases also not in genesis) and don’t fit the definition of Large Igneous Provinces as defined (correctly) in the article. The features are all isolated from each other by dramatically different geologic and tectonic provinces. Hope this helps. Cheers Geologyguy 22:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, the Steens in Oregon are related to the Yellow Stone hotspot via 16.5 million years of tectonic movement (Ellen Morris Bishop in book "In Search of Ancient Oregon", pg 131 mentions studies by Peter Hooper (of WSU) supporting the connection. Though, I guess a strip of activity is not a province meeting the LIP definition.

Hi, is the Cenozoic Volcanic field region in the NW USA identified by this Idaho State University map a LIP or is the Cenozoic period too long of a time period? http://geology.isu.edu/Digital_Geology_Idaho/Module9/BandRmapWlegend.jpg from: http://geology.isu.edu/Digital_Geology_Idaho/Module9/mod9.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.81.43 (talk) 12:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Map image of global LIP distribution

[edit]

This page could very much use a map. That is not a good reason to include a map that corresponds poorly to the text in the article, and that also is almost entirely irrelevent to the article.

The deleted map depicts mainly; Shield, Platform, Orogen, Basin, and Extended Crust. None of these entities are even mentioned in the text, not even by a single word, nor are they wiki-linked within the article.

The distribution of LIP's shown on the deleted map would mislead the lay reader into thinking that there are just a half-dozen or so LIP's in the world. Many of the world's largest LIP's are simply not shown on the deleted map. (Even though they are mentioned or referenced in the article) Perhaps worse, the deleted map would sorely misinform the reader about the proportion of the earths surface that is covered by LIP's.

It is not a bad map - it is a good map badly used. CGX (talk) 16:06, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on current editing campaign

[edit]

This is an important topic & warrants attention from the wikigeology community. There was some very nice work already done on the article; I think the writing style was far smoother than I can contribute and the author knew the current literature. But the content left me with several questions/observations:

  • A wide “grab bag” of disparate "things" were described as LIPs, but how does one can decide what’s in & what’s out?
  • Where in the world are these LIPs & what does one look like when you see it?
  • Why are LIPs important?
  • There are different styles of referencing used in the article – although it is a tedious task, we need to stick with a single style…

So as an amateur I’m doing some work on the article, but it will need a careful read by a trained geologist once I’m finished to assure accuracy. Anyone who wants to critique as I go along is welcome.

Skål - Williamborg (Bill) 16:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Large igneous province. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:45, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Map again

[edit]

If and when the map is improved or replaced, it would be good to have the British/Irish part of the North Atlantic Igneous Province included. cheers Geopersona (talk) 07:27, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, I looked at the map in closer detail and as a map lover/user, it was a bit confusing at first. The reason being it has two kinds of purple to identify the LIPs. The legend only defines one shade of purple (the lighter shade). The second purple is a darker color that is used as a border around the original purple, but for smaller provinces it effectively makes them look like a darker purple entirely. Very confusing. The image needs to be reworked. Leitmotiv (talk) 17:58, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hawaii as an LIP

[edit]

Per this article, Hawaii is an LIP but is not in the map graphic. This is just my opinion, but the tallest mountain in the world, plus the long string of Hawaiian volcanic seamounts, and the most active volcanic area in the world, probably qualifies it as an LIP. The Deccan Traps are flood basalts that are caused by the onset of a mantle plume at the crust. Hawaii is also a mantle plume. Food for thought. Leitmotiv (talk) 18:14, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on which definition and classification scheme of LIPs is being used. Some include seamounts e.g. Hawaii, some exclude seamounts. GeoWriter (talk) 21:24, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@GeoWriter: Since flood basalts are known to be associated with mantle plumes, it seems like an oversight not to include the Hawaiian seamount as a province. A seamount can be an LIP, they're not mutually exclusive. Leitmotiv (talk) 20:48, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:22, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Large_igneous_province&oldid=1204625189"